Whale Branch Corp. v. Federal Land Bank of Columbia, 21277
| Decision Date | 29 July 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 21277,21277 |
| Citation | 268 S.E.2d 583,275 S.C. 218 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | WHALE BRANCH CORPORATION, Respondent, v. FEDERAL LAND BANK OF COLUMBIA, South Carolina; Grady G. McDaniel, Nadine T. McDaniel, and South Carolina Insurance Company, of which Federal Land Bank of Columbia, South Carolina is the, Appellant. |
Edward M. Woodward, of Woodward, Butler & Unger, Colubmia, for appellant.
J. Thomas Mikell, of Harvey, Battey & Bethea, Beaufort, for respondent.
This appeal by defendant Federal Land Bank is from the refusal of the trial judge to sustain its demurrer to the complaint of the Whale Branch Corporation. We affirm.
The complaint, as summarized in the statement, 1 reflects that a Mr. and Mrs. Farley bought several tracts of land totaling 387.61 acres from the Pomona Corporation. In connection with this purchase, the Farleys gave the Land Bank their note and purchase money mortgage in the amount of $250,000.00. Several months later, Mr. Farley acquired his wife's interest in a portion of the property and conveyed that 312.04 acres to Grady C. McDaniel. At that time, the Land Bank released the Farleys from their obligations and McDaniel assumed payment of the note and mortgage. However, the entire 387.61 acres remained encumbered by the mortgage. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Farley acquired Mrs. Farley's interest in the remainder of the property and conveyed approximately 70 acres to Whale Branch, which currently owns about 40 acres.
The gravamen of Whale Branch's complaint is that its property stands as surety for McDaniel's obligation to the Land Bank since it is still covered by the lien of the mortgage. Whale Branch asserts that, due to certain acts and omissions of the Land Bank in its dealings with McDaniel, its property should be discharged as surety. The Land Bank, by its demurrer, maintained that no cause of action was stated. The trial judge found otherwise, and we agree.
The Land Bank appeals, asserting that no surety relationship was established by the complaint. Since the complaint is not before us, we cannot conclusively determine if the pleading properly raises this allegation. On appeal counsel attempts to argue the merits of the surety-relationship issue. As this court recently stated in Preston H. Haskell Company v. Morgan, S.C., 262 S.E.2d 737 at 738 (1980):
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Winters v. Fiddie
...to, we construe Buyers' complaint as alleging a cause of action under section 27–50–65. See Whale Branch Corp. v. Fed. Land Bank of Columbia, 275 S.C. 218, 219, 268 S.E.2d 583, 584 (1980) (“In determining whether a cause of action is stated, we are required to construe the complaint liberal......
-
Todd v. South Carolina Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co.
...Inc., 251 S.C. 92, 160 S.E.2d 528 (1968); Pilkington v. McBain, S.C., 262 S.E.2d 916 (1980); Whale Branch Corporation v. Federal Land Bank of Columbia, S.C., 268 S.E.2d 583 (1980). When the pleading is reviewed in this light, it becomes apparent that a cause of action is stated. The second ......
-
Scott v. McCain
...in favor of McCain, as we are required to do, Pilkington v. McBain, S.C., 262 S.E.2d 916 (1980); Whale Branch Corporation v. Federal Land Bank of Columbia, S.C., 268 S.E.2d 583 (1980), it appears that no cause for a counterclaim is stated. There is no indication that wayward acts have taken......
-
Jackson v. River Pines, Inc., 21386
...S.C., 262 S.E.2d 916 (1980); Preston H. Haskell Company v. Morgan, S.C., 262 S.E.2d 737 (1980); Whale Branch Corporation v. Federal Land Bank of Columbia, S.C., 268 S.E.2d 583 (1980). In South Carolina the purchaser of unimproved land has had to covenant to protect whatever special rights o......